State v. Groce

1

2024 UT App 166

State of Utah, Appellee, v. Travis James Groce, Appellant.

No. 20240362-CA

Court of Appeals of Utah

November 15, 2024

Third District Court, Salt Lake Department The Honorable James T Blanch No. 241902112.

Ann M Taliaferro and Jackie Reidelberger, Attorneys for Appellant

Sean D. Reyes and Hwa Sung Doucette, Attorneys for Appellee

Ryan M. Harris, Judge authored this Opinion, in which Judges Gregory K. Orme and John D. Luthy concurred.

OPINION

RYAN M. HARRIS, JUDGE.

¶1 Travis James Groce is being held without bail pending resolution of a criminal information charging him with, among other things, attempted child kidnapping. In making its original pretrial detention determination, the district court found that there was substantial evidence to support the charges and that Groce was a substantial danger to the community. And later, after the preliminary hearing, the court determined that no material change in circumstances had occurred that would justify a change in Groce's pretrial detention status. Groce appeals, and challenges two of the court's pretrial detention orders.

¶2 In response, the State defends the court's rulings on their merits, but it also contends that Groce's appeal has been mooted by the court's subsequent reconsideration of the pretrial detention issue and repeated denial of Groce's continued requests for bail.

¶3 For the reasons discussed, we conclude that the issue raised by Groce's appeal-whether he is properly being detained pending resolution of the charges-has not been rendered moot by subsequent events. And on the merits of the matter, we reject Groce's arguments and affirm the challenged orders.

BACKGROUND

¶4 In February 2024, the State arrested Groce and filed an information charging him with attempted child kidnapping and with being a sex offender in a protected area. The information came accompanied by a "declaration of probable cause," in which a police officer explained that just days earlier, Groce-a registered sex offender-had driven into the parking lot of an apartment complex that had a playground. While there, Groce parked his "black SUV Tesla" next to the playground and left his "driver side door open." With the door open, Groce was then seen "waving" to a three-year-old girl (Child) "with his hand extended, palm facing up and curling his fingers towards him multiple times," as if he were beckoning to Child; one person told the officer that Groce was telling Child to "come here" in Spanish. At that point, Child began to approach the Tesla. Several adults at the playground-none of whom were related to Child-saw what was happening and surmised that Groce was not Child's parent; one of them even "stood in front of the black Tesla" to prevent Child from going to the car. Groce then closed his car door and fled the scene, but not before some of the adults were "able to obtain a partial license plate" number for the vehicle. The same witnesses also gave police a description of the vehicle as well as of Groce himself; they indicated that the man in question was "a heavier set white male wearing a black coat and glasses."

¶5 During their ensuing investigation, officers examined footage from traffic cameras in the area, and using that information plus the partial license plate, they were able to match the vehicle in question to Groce. Officers also determined that Groce was a registered sex offender. They located Groce at his house later that day wearing a black coat and glasses and they found the black Tesla in his garage. Groce's wife told officers that Groce had told her, earlier that day that "police were most likely on their way to arrest him." Also, one of the adults at the playground identified Groce in a photo lineup.

¶6 On the day after Groce's arrest, a district court judge made an initial determination to hold Groce without bail, entering a temporary pretrial status order and finding "substantial evidence to support the charge" as well as "clear and convincing evidence that [Groce] would constitute a substantial danger to any other individual or to the community . . . if released on bail."

¶7 About a week after the information was filed, Groce filed a motion challenging his pretrial detention. In that motion, Groce asked to be released "with conditions" or, alternatively, for the court to set bail. Groce asserted that the State did not have "substantial evidence" to support the charges and that the State could not demonstrate that Groce was a substantial danger to the community. Groce further argued that "any plausible risks" could be "mitigated by appropriate conditions of release," including GPS ankle monitoring.

¶8 Two days later, on March 1, 2024, the court held a hearing to consider Groce's motion. No witnesses testified at the hearing; instead, the court received "proffers of evidence" and "written descriptions of evidence." Groce asserted that the evidence was "unclear whether . . . witnesses actually saw this wave that allegedly occurred." He also asserted that only Child could have heard anything Groce said and that the adult witnesses had clarified that they did not hear Groce say anything. Groce asserted that, given these facts, there was not enough evidence that he had taken a "substantial step" toward kidnapping Child. In response, the State offered no new evidence, but it argued that the existing evidence strongly supported holding Groce without bail. In the State's view, when a registered sex offender drives into a playground parking lot, opens his car door, and beckons to a child, there is substantial evidence to support a charge of attempted child kidnapping. The State also pointed out Groce's apparent consciousness of guilt, in that he fled the scene and later told his wife that the police were going to be coming to get him. And it argued that Groce would be a substantial danger to the community if released, because his actions were "predatory" and represented an "escalation" from his previous sex offense (masturbating while watching children at play).

¶9 At the conclusion of the hearing, the court sided with the State and ordered Groce held without bail. First, the court found substantial evidence to support the charges, noting that Groce was a sex offender who visited a parking lot next to a playground, opened his car door, and beckoned to Child. The court observed that this behavior "caused two strangers to be alarmed enough to intercede." And the court noted that Groce had fled the scene, which "exhibit[ed], potentially, a guilty conscience with respect to what he was doing." All of this evidence, in the court's view, gave "rise to an inference that" Groce "was engaged in the act of trying to lure [Child] into his car, perhaps, in an escalation of what occurred" in his previous sex offense case.

¶10 As for whether Groce would be a substantial danger to the community if released, the court stated its "concern" that "there really isn't a set of circumstances" or conditions that could be placed on Groce "that would prevent this kind of behavior from occurring in the future." The court noted that Child was a "stranger" to Groce, so a no-contact order would not seem to help reduce the danger. The court noted that Groce was a sex offender who had been convicted of masturbating while watching children, and it was concerned that the current situation "appears to be an escalation . . . to the next level of actually having hands-on offenses involving children." The court therefore offered its preliminary view that Groce was a substantial danger to the community and that the danger could not be mitigated by restrictive pretrial conditions of release.

¶11 However, the court observed that it was being asked to make its pretrial detention decision "at the very beginning of" the case based solely on "proffers" and "written descriptions of evidence," which constituted a record that was "not as robust as what we see later at a preliminary hearing or that we learn as the case develops." The court therefore left the door open for the matter to be revisited if "things occur that change the analysis a little bit," and it specifically ordered that a "release recommendation report" be prepared, which the court indicated it would "take a look" at to "see if that changes [the court's] mind." And the court set a date, in three weeks, for a continuation of the detention hearing where the court could consider the release recommendation report. After the hearing, the court entered an order directing "Salt Lake County Pretrial Services to prepare a Release Recommendation Report."

¶12 Three weeks later, on March 22, the court held the continued detention hearing. By that point, the release recommendation report had been prepared, but that report made no specific recommendation, stating merely that the evaluators were "not mak[ing] recommendations on [first-degree-felony] Violent/Sex Offenses; as such, the release determination is at the discretion of the court." The report did however, say that Groce was not "preoccupied with the alleged victim" and that Groce had a job and could go back home and live with his wife if released. At the follow-up hearing, Groce emphasized these points and asked for pretrial release, making a specific suggestion that the court "could impose additional restrictions via GPS monitoring that would restrict his location." The State again objected, reiterating its previous positions. After hearing argument from both sides, the district court saw "nothing in the Release Recommendation Report that change[d] [its] mind" that Groce was a "significant risk to the community," noting in particular that GPS monitoring "would tell us where he is, but it wouldn't tell us whether there are children around." The court...